In a recent development, the Supreme Court voiced its concerns regarding the central government’s prolonged delay in addressing the collegium’s recommendations for the appointment and transfer of judges in constitutional courts. The apex court specifically pointed to the Manipur High Court, termed as ‘a sensitive high court’, where the chief justice position remains unfilled. The government has yet to act on the collegium’s suggestion to appoint Delhi High Court judge, Siddharth Mridul, as the chief justice of the Manipur High Court. This delay comes at a time when the northeastern state is facing extended ethnic conflicts, necessitating timely judicial interventions.
Justice MV Muralidaran is currently holding the position of acting chief justice in the Manipur High Court.
On July 6, 2023, the Supreme Court collegium, which includes Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sanjiv Khanna, put forth the name of Delhi High Court judge Siddharth Mridul for the chief justice role in Manipur. This followed an earlier recommendation on February 9 to appoint Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur to the same position. However, with the elevation of the then-chief justice, PV Sanjay Kumar, to the Supreme Court, and the pending recommendation for Justice Thakur, the collegium had to suggest a new name for the Manipur High Court. Despite nearly three months passing, the Centre has yet to approve Justice Mridul’s appointment.
A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia was reviewing a petition by the Advocates Association of Bengaluru. The petition seeks contempt action against the Union Ministry of Law and Justice for not adhering to the timeline set by the Court in a 2021 judgment for clearing collegium proposals. Another writ petition by NGO Common Cause, addressing the delay in judicial appointments, was also under consideration.
During the hearing, the court expressed its concerns to Attorney-General R Venkataramani about the government’s delay in processing or announcing the recommendations. Justice Kaul emphasized that 70 recommendations from the high court collegium, dating back to November 11, 2022, remain pending with the Centre. He further noted several other pending recommendations and urged the attorney-general to “seek instructions”.
This issue has previously sparked confrontations between the judiciary and the executive over judicial appointments. Notably, after the Supreme Court requested the Centre’s response to the contempt petition, then Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju publicly questioned the collegium system’s validity. The court responded with disapproval, urging the attorney-general to advise the Centre to adhere to the court’s established laws regarding judicial appointments.
Attorney-General R Venkataramani had previously assured the court that the government would adhere to the timeline for judicial appointments and clear pending recommendations. However, several appointments, including those of Advocates Saurabh Kirpal, Somasekhar Sundaresan, and John Satyan, remain unnotified despite the court’s reiteration.
The court has also previously highlighted the importance of timely appointments, stating that delays
“frustrated the whole system”.
Concerns have also been raised about the Centre’s habit of
“splitting up collegium resolutions”,
which disrupts the seniority of nominated judges.
The issue, which seemed to have subsided after the Centre approved several collegium resolutions, has resurfaced, with the Court expressing its intent to pursue the matter further.
Case Title: Advocates Association Bengaluru v. Barun Mitra And Anr. | Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 867 of 2021 in Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 2419 of 2019
